[Closed] Are we sometimes our own worst enemy? (cycle path content, sorry!)

The one between Newbridge and Browburn is great apart from the bit past the motor dealers at Newbridge and the petrol station at Broxburn. The bridge over Newbridge even better. Used to use it daily and wondered why the guy on a singlespeed holding up the traffic felt the need to stay on the road.

Gogar to Newbridge, not so good. Poor surface in places, but generally ok as long as you're not on 23mm tyres. Still better than being with the traffic.

It depends. If I'm commuting generally I'll use the cyclepaths were available, but they are often strewn with wet leaves, branches, pedestrians, slower riders, small dogs and toddlers. They also do not have priority over junctions so you stop every 30secs and risk getting splatted more than if you sat on the main road and ride at the same speed as the cars.

Also sometimes the cyclepath is on the wrong side of the main road, so to use it you would have to cross a busy road twice, to get onto it and back off.

I have only ever had abuse for not using a cyclepath on one stretch of road in Southampton, and its happened three times by different drivers so obviously a 'thing' with the locals there. As far as I'm concerned, if you can pull up next to me, wind your window down and shout abuse at me, you can quite easily and safely pass....

Taking a look at the path in question, it looks a bit rubbish getting on/off at either end of it, but nothing obvious as to why you wouldn't use it.

but they are often strewn with wet leaves, branches, pedestrians, slower riders, small dogs and toddlers. They also do not have priority over junctions so you stop every 30secs

No experience of the path in question, but this is my experience of cycle paths round here that I don't use. Drivers that are "held up" by me because they can't get past need to look at what's coming the opposite direction, stopping them getting past. More bikes? I don't think so.

Very similar to the cycle path along past Prestwick airport, wide, smooth and no furniture or much in the way of pedestrians, yet I see folks on the dual carriageway, in miserable wet conditions and poor visiblity, such as we've had this week, on a regular basis.

Not for a minute am I saying they shouldn't be on the road, but it wouldn't be me.

Similar on the Inverness Distributor Road. Wide, well surfaced, shared-use but not a problem. There's the occasional roundabout but at least you're away from the (only) 40mph traffic. I still see riders on the road though - and I don't mean lycra-clad roadies in the red zone.

Or the A9 north of Kessock as another example.

I do grudge taking stupid detours or stopping to give way too often on some cycle paths. the examples I give don't incur those penalties.

I see a similar thing on the a77 at the top of newton mearns. Heading south it's uphill to the gso roundabout, single lane road with double white lines. Of course because there's double white lines drivers don't cross them but still want to overtake anyone riding on it.

There's a cycle path runs alongside this, its not busy with cyclists or pedestrians yet most days I see people riding up the road then crossing to go on the cycle path after the motorway junction.

So they ride on the road at the most dangerous bit but go on the path later, I don't get it. I wouldn't suggest anyone shouldn't ride on the road but I wouldn't ride there at rush hour.

^^^ was just about to post about same section. Great path, always use it, though it can get a bit slippery with leaves and debris in winter, which is maybe why some folk avoid it ?

New ones built along the Staines road at Bedfont, raised and separate from traffic, lip for a border with pedestrians, different surface for clarity. Perfect. Too bad a Police care decided to park on it to take a break yesterday.

I don't use cyclepaths because I think they should be limited to 15 mph for safety, and I ride faster than that. And of course when on the trike, it's rather wide.

it can get a bit slippery with leaves and debris in winter, which is maybe why some folk avoid it ?

Most of the times I see people using the road are during the lighter nights & mornings not in winter. I've been riding it for 10 years and never had a slippy leaf incident.

It's a pretty regular occurrence though and I just don't get it. It's fine heading into Glasgow as you can carry plenty of speed but going the other way is a slow process for some folk I see.

Some paths are great, just impossible to get onto.

This one is great (on the right hand side) https://goo.gl/maps/AUErqtLGn5M2

Except to get onto that road from Winnersh is the first exit at the roundabout.

To get onto the cyclepath is 8, yes [b]EIGHT[/b] Toucan crossings.

Which is why I ignore it, take the abuse from the drivers and join it at the next roundabout by turning right and then onto the pavement.

It also has to give way at each junction, and they've built fences alongside most of it so you can't see car's indicators when cycling along so you have to stop at every bloody one.

I think the main problem with cycle paths is the are mostly designed to be accessed like a pedestrian. They are not considered roads so have 90* access paths or end as pedestrian crossings, with no designed way to rejoin the carriageway. What they really need is slip-road style entrances and exits

You couldn't pay me to ride a bike on busy roads, so I dont think ill ever understand it, but see this all the time on the A82 Loch Lomond. There is a cycle route the whole way along it which used to be the old road, yet roadies still ride on the main road.

See that's the grey area for me, commuting vs. recreation. Are those roadies on the A82 weekend warriors, or commuters? The difference being that a commuter could reasonably be expected to take a slightly slower option if it's safer, or (as I'm arguing) it makes life easier for other road users. If those guys were out on their sunday best roadies maybe they don't want to be churning over old broken tarmac, leaves and gravel.

There's a stunning cycle path that's been mostly completed between Oban and Glen Coe, scenic, purpose built, decent width etc. I wouldn't ride it on a road bike though, leafy, mossy corners (occasionally) plus some blind sections and lots of families and kids on it at weekends, not the place for 20mph time trial attempts!

But if it were my commute and it was a busy road (I'm not sure what rush hour looks like in Benderloch 😀 ) I would shelve my pathetic Strava ambitions and just go a bit slower.

Let's put it another way. Why [i]do[/i] you think people don't ride on the path. Do you think they are just being weird & irrational?

If those guys were out on their sunday best roadies maybe they don't want to be churning over old broken tarmac, leaves and gravel.

I get this and if I'm out on the road bike I wouldn't ride on cycle paths, but I wouldn't choose to ride on roads where cycle paths were an option. I have a multitude of small country road options so would choose then instead, not a main road.

Why do you think people don't ride on the path. Do you think they are just being weird & irrational?

As I said, I don't understand why they do it - I ride on it twice a day and there's no issues with the path at all. The ones I see are generally NewRoadies going by their speed and body shape - something to prove maybe, I dunno.

When people complain that "cyclists don't use the cycle path" they probably mean they saw one not using it and felt they were being slowed down.

FWIW this kind of phrase makes me fume much more:

our own worst enemy?

This old article is a discussion of the question in the title:
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/are-cyclists-their-own-worst-enemies/

As for the stock defence, a visual handbook:
https://twitter.com/bollocksinfra

Presumably cyclists are killing over 100 other cyclists every year given the title of the thread?

I've used it between broxburn and newbridge, it's pretty good, perhaps it's badly signposted? It crosses some other roads etc but I can't see why you would sit on that horrendous road rather than use the cycle path unless you're a stravaist roadie.

Between newbridge and gogar it's a bit less good, some driveway/road crossings, airport roundabout sucks, but still preferable to the road imho. I'm pretty sure you'd be overtaking the cars by using the cycle path during rush hour.

Generally, any anti cyclist moan on facebook is worth avoiding though, just bottom feeders looking to trigger for kicks.

OK, "own worst enemy" is just saying, I didn't [i]literally[/i] mean that cyclists not using (good quality) cycle paths are as bad as motorists killing people etc. etc.

But I'm sure you knew that.

they saw one not using it and felt they were being slowed down

Quite possibly, and the cyclist who is slowing them down might want to ask himself, is it worth giving another frothing Daily Mail reader more anti-cyclist ammunition, just because I don't want to use that perfectly good looking cycle path 2 metres to my left.

Remember, I'm not talking about the crap cycle paths, I'm talking about the very good example of a cycle path I posted above, and at rush hour, not on the Sunday morning club run.

From a quick view on Streetview, going from where the path starts on the edge of Broxburn to the M9 junction at Newbridge:

- I can't see how you get on the path
- There are at least six give-way crossings of minor roads, entrances to premises etc which present risks and mean having to slow down and speed up again
- one or two of these are partially underwater
- there are three toucan crossings to cross
- although some sections are wide enough for two cycles to pass, not all of it appears to allow passing with ease
- I can't see how you get off the path, either

As for heading the other way, there's no provision for getting across the road onto the path as far as I can see.

I've seen a lot worse, but it suffers from the usual problems that occur when councils manage to build something separate from the carriageway:

- getting on and off is at best very unclear
- you have to repeatedly slow and give way or wait for signals, all of which would be avoided on the carriageway
- it's too narrow for two users to pass safely

Personally, if I was riding slowly on in urban commuting mode I'd probably find a way to use it. But if I was on a recreational ride or on a long commute on a road bike, I'd end up on the road because I'd probably never see the way onto it and even if I did I'd rather keep rolling than have nine crossings that to slow right down or stop at.

is it worth giving another frothing Daily Mail reader more anti-cyclist ammunition, just because I don't want to use that perfectly good looking cycle path 2 metres to my left

But it's the 'daily mail reader' and the irritated drivers that are in the wrong. As I said I don't get it regarding the road I described but I wouldn't complain at someone because they choose to ride there.

the cyclist who is slowing them down might want to ask himself, is it worth giving another frothing Daily Mail reader more anti-cyclist ammunition

Oh come on. Making moral judgments about someone because you think they're annoying a Daily Mail reader is a bit rich. People riding bikes just want to get to work or wherever. They want to do it without some idiot driving into them but they also want to do it with an acceptable level of ease and convenience. Same as everyone else, whether they're on a bike or in a car.

If you're never going to do anything that annoys a Daily Mail reader then you might as well buy the paper and vote for whatever it suggests you should. It's the most stupid form of respectability politics to act according to the values that you hate.

How about making moral judgments about the people who spend public money on infrastructure that's not good enough for anyone to choose to use it? Direct your annoyance in that direction, not towards the people who are doing nothing other than riding to work along a route that they rationally decide to be the best one for their needs.

The difference being that a commuter could reasonably be expected to take a slightly slower option if it's safer, or (as I'm arguing) it makes life easier for other road users. If those guys were out on their sunday best roadies maybe they don't want to be churning over old broken tarmac, leaves and gravel.

Opposite way around for me.

At the weekend I'll happily pootle about and take the loner route on quiet lanes.

My commute though is already ~90minutes on a bike, I'm not diverting it onto every possible cycle path just to appease some soding motorists.

Maybe they should drive 20minutes out of their way to use the motorway rather than the road I'm riding on.

From my personal experience, I sometimes only realise there's a cycle lane when I've already entered a section of road at 20mph. Then it's too late to get across a raised kerb or whatever.

Sorry if I'm letting the side down.

In the UK cyclists don't have to use the cycle paths, so if that frustrates the motorists then they really need to remember that they have no more right to be on the road than anyone else.

In Belgium I understand that cyclists have to use a cycle path if it is provided. However, the paths tend to be better and the motorists are excellent and giving way.

My 12mile commute is mainly cycle/ shared use paths but ones built as the road was built.
The only porblem i have is crossing at roundabout junctions, at the busiest point they really need to be further down the road and the amount of glass that seems to be collecting on them. No wonder all the dog walkers are restricted to one section.

I use cycle paths whenever possible and just don't understand the arguments from other cyclists that they are 'dangerous' or less safe. Maybe the cycle paths around me are above average standard, though I doubt it, but the notion they are more dangerous than being buzzed by cars doing 60mph a couple of inches off my right shoulder seems a bit of a desperate argument as far as I can see. Sure they're not always super smooth....but neither are roads, far from it. I suspect there is an element of ego going on...."I can't possibly be considered a serious cyclist when riding on a cycle path on my £5k pro road bike wearing my Sunday best Rapha Lycra, I need to be making progress". Or "I've been cycling on roads for 40 year man and boy, I'm not going to start using cycle paths now", despite roads being very different and far more dangerous places than they were 40 years ago. So it is a bit frustrating to see a cyclist on the road riding next to a perfectly good cycle lane whether I'm in a car or on a bike. But hey ho, I'm a patient fella and made a conscious decision long ago not to get wound up by other people because there is sweet FA you can do about it, so just crack on, life is too short.

I'm pretty horrified that near me there have been a few new roads built and they haven't built in dedicated cycle lanes. I find that absolutely ridiculous in this day and age that a brand new road can be built without world class cycle lane infrastructure when there is plenty of space either side of the road. Disgusting.

So it is a bit frustrating to see a cyclist on the road riding next to a perfectly good cycle lane whether I'm in a car or on a bike.

Not sure why you would get frustrated by it, it's their choice. It might not be the wise choice but they have every right to be there.

I use cycle paths whenever possible and just don't understand the arguments from other cyclists that they are 'dangerous' or less safe.

Certain things are.

For instance, here's a (shared) cycle path crossing an entrance to a roundabout. Traffic on the roundabout is fairly heavy and moves quickly, which means that drivers near the entrance stay focused on what's coming from their right.

[img] [/img]

Which means—especially when you add the significant and inherent problems of traversing multiple lanes—that this was completely predictable:

[img] [/img]

There are other problems with this, too, such as having to turn into the crossing at a sharp angle on an off-camber patch of tactile paving that's very slippery in the wet, with very little visibility of approaching traffic. That's nearly caught me out in the past.

This path makes eleven crossings of side roads, several of which present visibility risks, and also throws three toucan crossings into the mix, all in the space of a mile. Never mind the fact that at certain times it's also densely populated with pedestrians, who face additional risk from pedal cycles.

The road alongside it has one set of traffic lights and—with the possible exception of the roundabout—is pretty safe.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/surreys-failed-roundabouts/

I've used cycle paths in the past and where I no longer commute on a bike I rarely use them.
However, cyclepaths have to have certain criteria fullfilled for me to consider them useful.
1) They form an efficient & useful alternative to use the road.
2) They form a reasonably direct route to where im going.
3) They don't make me stop / start / weave about / squeeze in gaps / force me to cross main roads / give way to every single blade of grass. This is probably my biggest gripe.
4) They are wide enough to pass pedestrians / cyclists going the other way.
5) They are well maintained and well surfaced. I don't want to be banging along a path strewn with debris and broken glass.
6) Don't make me dismount and walk. Whats the point of that on a cycle path.

IMO half the UKs cycling paths are just box ticking exercises by the local council and don't really offer a useful alternative to the road.

They also do not have priority over junctions so you stop every 30secs and risk getting splatted more than if you sat on the main road and ride at the same speed as the cars.

Essentially non cyclist place something not on the road and think it will be ace even though they do not cycle themselves

Thanks folks, if nothing else Bez gave me a good list of points to put to the local moaners, not having used that bit of cycle path myself I hadn't really thought about the number of junctions etc.

Re: my Daily Mail comments, I know what I meant. In the (perhaps imaginary) scenario where the cycle path is NO WORSE than using the road, why would you continue to use the road and antagonise the poor dears in their cars, unless you were trying to make some sort of stupid statement about your right to be there?

Before anyone responds, I refer you again to the part about the (hypothetical) cycle path being equally as good as the road beside it, as this point seems to have been missed above ^

In the (perhaps imaginary) scenario where the cycle path is NO WORSE than using the road, why would you continue to use the road and antagonise the poor dears in their cars, unless you were trying to make some sort of stupid statement about your right to be there?

I get your point but it's a slightly simplistic statement, because "no worse" plays out differently for different people at different times, and different people have different perceptions of risk from traffic, which is a factor in the "no worse" judgement.

Realistically I think there are very few people who would choose to antagonise people in cars for no benefit, because that clearly makes no sense unless you like having a fight with someone armed with a ton of metal. So I'd suggest your hypothetical scenario is fundamentally flawed.

The basic point is that if people aren't choosing it, there's at least one reason why it's not good enough for them to choose it. The solution is to fix what's wrong with it rather than to simply tell people to use something that they perceive to be less good than exposing themselves to the wrath of "the poor dears" in the cars and the lorries.

- I can't see how you get on the path
- There are at least six give-way crossings of minor roads, entrances to premises etc which present risks and mean having to slow down and speed up again
- one or two of these are partially underwater
- there are three toucan crossings to cross
- although some sections are wide enough for two cycles to pass, not all of it appears to allow passing with ease
- I can't see how you get off the path, either

Precisely. There is a path near me, that looks good quality to the untrained eye as it is wide, segregated and well surfaced. In order to use it you have to cross the road twice, and give way at five minor junctions (which require you to look through 270 degrees necessitating a complete stop). It is definitely less convenient, and arguably less safe than using the road.

I ride in Denmark quite a bit and you are expected to use the excellent cycle paths they provide on all but roads other than country lanes. Trouble is I'm so programmed to use the road that I often the path start, perhaps in the OPs case everyone is dismissive of the 95% of bad paths that they ignore all.

I did the same as Bez and checked out the OP's bike path. It might be well surfaced etc., but right here is the reason I'd be unlikely to use it https://goo.gl/maps/WNt9NJLnBPy

In a short space there you have 3 points where you have to give way - not even to people using a different route, but just to people pulling off the road into services (one doesn't even go anywhere FFS!) Rubbish infrastructure.

[quote=13thfloormonk ]In the (perhaps imaginary) scenario where the cycle path is NO WORSE than using the road, why would you continue to use the road and antagonise the poor dears in their cars, unless you were trying to make some sort of stupid statement about your right to be there?

I wouldn't, but it's a pointless question, because whenever anybody mentions "wonderful" cycling infrastructure in this country it's always objectively worse than the road in one way or another. Extremely rare for example that you don't have to give way at every side turning.

[quote=Gary_M ]I see a similar thing on the a77 at the top of newton mearns. Heading south it's uphill to the gso roundabout, single lane road with double white lines. Of course because there's double white lines drivers don't cross them but still want to overtake anyone riding on it.
There's a cycle path runs alongside this, its not busy with cyclists or pedestrians yet most days I see people riding up the road then crossing to go on the cycle path after the motorway junction.

I'm confused - could you explain which bike path you mean, because I presume it's not this one: https://goo.gl/maps/hYtkP18eNgE2

I've been in hamburg for a few weeks. Cycle paths all over the place. Cycling heaven, you might think? Actually it's a heap of shite for cycling. Up and down bits of pavement, narrow busy paths with pedestrians all over the place, shitty bumpy surfaces with edges and cambers all over the place (and wet leaves the last week or two), and worst of all the ****ing drivers honk if you dare to ride on the roads in order to make safe progress at a decent speed.

(they are still a lot better than UK drivers of course)

[img] [/img]

This is an example of a roundabout in Belgium, with a cycle path all the way around the outside. It is clear from the marking that cyclists have priority to cars. It's actually quite odd to have a car give way to you on a bike so that you can cross their path. And car drivers rigidly obey this rule. (There is a scooter on the cycle path in this photo because 50cc scooters also share the cycle paths). This arrangement is common where a cycle path crosses a junction.

I'm confused - could you explain which bike path you mean, because I presume it's not this one: https://goo.gl/maps/hYtkP18eNgE2

Yes, that's the bit I'm referring to although the double white lines are further up, but you obviously can't overtake at the hatchings anyway as they are solid white lines.

What's confusing you exactly and why would you presume it's not that one?

Realistically I think there are very few people who would choose to antagonise people in cars for no benefit, because that clearly makes no sense unless you like having a fight with someone armed with a ton of metal. So I'd suggest your hypothetical scenario is fundamentally flawed.

You can't spot the obvious issue with it?

Well I haven't spotted it in 10 years but do go on so I can see it on the way home tonight. I presume you've ridden it and aren't just relying on google streetview to 'spot the issue'.

Is google streetview not accurate then? What do you have to do if riding the bike path at the point I linked?

Here's another reason not to use it: https://goo.gl/maps/8gx9FuWir4N2

I've been in hamburg for a few weeks. Cycle paths all over the place. Cycling heaven, you might think? Actually it's a heap of shite for cycling. Up and down bits of pavement, narrow busy paths with pedestrians all over the place, shitty bumpy surfaces with edges and cambers all over the place (and wet leaves the last week or two), and worst of all the **** drivers honk if you dare to ride on the roads in order to make safe progress at a decent speed.

Munich was like this. The urban ones, at least. The suburban ones run right next to walls and hedges of properties, with an entrance every few yards. You're completely unsighted so you havw to go really slowly for fear of being taken out by an emerging car. And motorists gave me grief for not using all this 'lovely' cycling infrastructure.

Here's another reason not to use it: https://goo.gl/maps/8gx9FuWir4N2

That's a dead end with one house on it, in all the years I've ridden there has never been a car on that 'road' and if there ever was you could see it all the way up the path

From you're personal experience of riding there how did you get on? What did you think of the traffic at that point at rush hour, was it busy on both sides of the road or just one way? Is the road fast or slow up to that crossing point, did you stay on the road then find it easy to get onto the path or not, if you went on the cycle path before the crossing point did you have to wait long to cross?

How about this bit, smart place to ride or is the nice wide path more sensible?

[url= https://goo.gl/maps/mcojBzyyiuS2 ]here[/url]

I'm simply pointing out reasons some people might choose not to use the bike path - if the traffic is light enough that crossing there isn't an issue at all, then I can't see why riding on the road would be an issue.

if the traffic is light enough that crossing there isn't an issue at all, then I can't see why riding on the road would be an issue.

It's light going north, much heavier going south.

In which case crossing the road there is presumably a pain.

The shared path I use to get to work looks brilliant on google maps. Wide, well surfaced. Try riding it though. Surface is terrible in places - I dinged a rim on an unseen pothole 🙁 , it's regularly covered with broken glass, vegetation is overhanging and at the moment lots of wet leaves. You also give way to all the slip roads. Finally as a special treat it has bollards in the centre of it which are painted black, next to invisible at night.

Still preferable to riding on that particular road IMO but it is still shite.

Not if you're heading south, no.

So explain to me how heavy traffic doesn't make it a pain crossing the road (actually I'm curious why crossing in one direction is easier than the other).

As others have said it may also be convenient entrance and exit. There is a bike path near me which if comming from one direction involves a alkward crossing of the road. By the time you have crossed it and got back up to speed you are 500 m plus behind where you would be. Hence it's off putting.

i use a cycle path if its a decent distance without crossing roads or joining and leaving traffic - and regarding cycling busy roads - id look for another route if that was the case -

I firmly believe its better to be part of traffic than to be ducking and diving in and out of it - and thats from my bike and my car.Id rather the bike was infront of me slowing me down than it came in from the left at my rear quarter or infront of me and caused me to brake- because thats where the cycle path directs you - and thats as someone whos cycle aware - most of the driving public are not.

One of the best non cycling cycling infrastructure ive seen was in Vancouver. It wasnt like holland/denmark where you had total segregation for the most part - they just made the rat runs un attractive by making the intersections left or right (alternate) and only bikes could go straight on - they did this by concrete barriers. Kept the bikes off the main streets and kept the suburban streets relitively low speeds as only really the people that owned houses there used them and so kept the home owners happy also.

You appear to be arguing about a different bit of the path I was referring to. The bit I originally referred to was after that crossing point. If you've decided to ride on the road up to that point, which is perfectly fine, then it's very easy to cross the road onto the cycle path, on the opposite side of the road heading south.

If you decide to ride on the path up to the crossing point then there's always gaps in the traffic that allow you to cross within a reasonable time as there's a junction a bit further down and there's always cars turning down there.

As I said if you'd ridden it you would understand, rather than point out a dead end road as a reason not to use a path rather than looking at the bit, with the double white lines, that I originally referred to and linked to above.

lets also not forget that most shared use paths were designed(sustrans guidance) with 12mph in mind - some of them are actually designed to keep your speed down with sharp turns (i know the a92 arbroath to dundee road one was) its actually horrible to ride on a road bike. Then if you stay on the high path past broughty ferry you have to play is that an extendo lead or not when you see the human on one side and the dog on the other .....

also interested to know how if one side is busy its easier to cross form one side as you still have to cross both lanes - not trolling/antagonising and just discussing

Never ridden that section to be open and clear. Actually locally the only ones I ride are
1) Completely off road not at the side of roads- though I have been taken out twice by dogs just appearing from woods so i dont do over about 10 mph on it now. The road section would just be insanely dangerous and would include triple lane traffic lighted Mway roundabouts and the like.
2) one section of path where its a double carriageway to single carriageway that then merges with a dual carriageway to make a triple carriageway [ 50 mph speed limit iirc]

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7638676,-2.7770055,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss-hLYnfuuU-0HpAMZZUhrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 ]google map link[/url]

also interested to know how if one side is busy its easier to cross form one side as you still have to cross both lanes - not trolling/antagonising and just discussing

I've explained that above.

I'm just pointing out that if traffic is light enough to make crossing not a pain, then it's also light enough to make riding on the road not a pain. If you've ridden the road to that point and found it not a problem, why would you think it a problem to continue on the road? When you've got to that point on the road, how do you cross the road onto the path on the other side - do you pull into the middle in front of the heavy traffic which is such a problem with continuing to ride on the road? Sure the bit next to the double white lines looks good, but even if you had just posted a pic of that I'd be wondering how you got onto a cycle path on the wrong side of the road - it's not just a question of how good one bit of the infrastructure is, it's a question of how it works as a whole.

From your original post I assumed it was a rare example of excellent infrastructure which there was no reason at all not to use. Having to cross the road to use a cycle path on the opposite side of the road is a reason not to use infrastructure as it immediately makes it less convenient than riding on the road. You were wondering why people didn't use it, and I've given an answer - it's less convenient than the road. Still waiting for an example of a bike path cyclists ignore despite being as convenient as the road.

The dead end is a minor issue, but an example of the way bike paths are done in this country - if it's so minor, what's wrong with giving the bike path priority? Sure going South it's probably not an issue, but coming the other way you'd be wanting to slow down a lot as you can't see if anything is coming.

[quote=Gary_M ]

also interested to know how if one side is busy its easier to cross form one side as you still have to cross both lanes - not trolling/antagonising and just discussing

I don't see where you have - it was also a question I asked. Would be useful if you could explain again.

Anyway, what's the stock defence for not using a perfect good looking cycle path?

Without looking at specifics of any one section of path... Cycle paths aren't for all cyclists in the same way that motorways aren't for all motorists.

Motorways are special bits of road infrastructure where motorists can drive safely, separated from other traffic and road users for their own safety and convince and the safety of others. So why are motorists between Broxburn and Newbridge not using the M8 /M9 rather than getting in the way of cyclists and pedestrians?

The answer is of course "lots of reasons" - all the drivers on that road will have their own reason for not using that perfectly good stretch of motorway thats just a few hundred yards away and has been built just for them.

And cyclists will have lots of reasons to use or not use a cycle path - broadly speaking cycle infrastructure is geared towards novice cyclists and not all cyclists are novices. They're campaigned for by organisations that are seeking to encourage people to take up cycling by creating a safe space for novices to get started travelling by bike, and they're implemented by people who respond to that campaign by developing infrastructure that reinforces a novice approach to travel - dismounting at interactions, hiding away on the left and so on. They're developed and designed by people imagining the requirements of someone who doesn't cycle but [i]who might[/i]. Of course most people who cycle are people who [i]do[/i] cycle, and those aren't the people the designers of the infrastructure were thinking of.

When you're no longer a novice then more often than not the cycle-specific infrastructure just interrupts you're journey.

do you pull into the middle in front of the heavy traffic which is such a problem with continuing to ride on the road

It's a narrow road you need to ride in the middle of the lane anyway, riding in the gutter would be stupid so there's no pulling into heavy traffic as you're in the flow anyway. If you can't cope with doing a right turn with traffic behind you then you really shouldn't be on the road.

You keep going back to the crossing point which is a complete non issue, not sure why you continue to focus on that bit when I didn't mention that in the first place.

I'd be wondering how you got onto a cycle path on the wrong side of the road

As I said it's all about actually riding it, not analysing view street view.

The dead end is a minor issue,

The dead end is a non issue.

but coming the other way you'd be wanting to slow down a lot as you can't see if anything is coming

But you can see if there's anything on it, all the way up the path, plus it's a hill so generally not that fast going south.

Having to cross the road to use a cycle path on the opposite side of the road is a reason not to use infrastructure

It's really not.

You really need to ride it, once you do you can come back with some real feedback that makes sense. Sitting looking at streetview at a photograph from a lovely sunny sunday morning doesn't compare to a dark winters night when it's pissing down.

[quote=Gary_M ]It's a narrow road you need to ride in the middle of the lane anyway, riding in the gutter would be stupid so there's no pulling into heavy traffic as you're in the flow anyway.

Heavy traffic which is presumably trying to overtake you (yes I know there are solid white lines, but that doesn't usually stop cars overtaking, and TBH the sightlines at that point are plenty good enough to make overtaking safe - they look like typical solid white lines which have been plonked down without proper thought for what they make it illegal to do). You can't have it both ways - if the traffic is light enough to make this not an issue, then it makes continuing on the road not an issue.

You keep going back to the crossing point which is a complete non issue, not sure why you continue to focus on that bit when I didn't mention that in the first place.

Because as nice as the bit of path further up is you still have to get onto it, you can't look at one bit of path in isolation - if there is some part of the infrastructure less convenient or worse than the road, then the infrastructure as a whole is less convenient or worse.

Having to cross the road to use a cycle path on the opposite side of the road is a reason not to use infrastructure

It's really not.

You came on here wondering why some people didn't use it - sure it's fine for you, I get it, but having to cross the road does objectively make it less convenient and not everybody will see it the same as you. Maybe they've not ever tried it, and they're seeing it the same as me looking on streetview?

TBH the sightlines at that point are plenty good enough to make overtaking safe

Again you're basing this on streetview, you're also arguing about a point I didn't even mention.

You can't have it both ways - if the traffic is light enough to make this not an issue, then it makes continuing on the road not an issue.

As I've already explained the road steepens after the crossing point, traffic builds up, etc, etc.

but having to cross the road does objectively make it less convenient

Crossing roads is a pretty normal thing to do, it's not inconvenient. It's just a standard right turn.

And as I said before I don't have an issue with people riding on the road, it's up to them, I wouldn't do it and you haven't given any valid reason why it's a better option.

If you can't cope with doing a right turn with traffic behind you then you really shouldn't be on the road.

But the problem is that the infrastructure requires you to do that to get off the road, so that viewpoint neatly illustrates why most people who feel they shouldn't have to be on the road would probably find that infrastructure crap.

[quote=Gary_M ]Again you're basing this on streetview, you're also arguing about a point I didn't even mention.

Streetview is plenty good enough to work out things like that, and you're just ignoring the issues - are we supposed to just take your word for it if you say "it's fine"? If I was riding up there and thinking about crossing the road to the path I'd be checking behind to see what cars are doing and slowing down.

As I've already explained the road steepens after the crossing point, traffic builds up, etc, etc.

Where does the extra traffic come from? I presume not the dead end road 😉

you haven't given any valid reason why it's a better option.

Because you have to cross the road, which makes it objectively a less convenient thing to do than just continuing up the road. Given a completely empty road would you use the bike path?

I'm just pointing out that if traffic is light enough to make crossing not a pain, then it's also light enough to make riding on the road not a pain.

When you've got unidirectional heavy flow, heavy enough to reduce speeds to 20mph or less, this can easily be true.

Imagine you're riding in the lightly-trafficked direction, so that the opposite lane is thick with slow-moving traffic. Anyone approaching from behind simply can't safely get past, so you have three alternatives:
- go Full Cavendish to reduce the chance of someone behind getting irate
- stay at a gentle pace and know that everyone behind probably hates you
- get out of the way

(I have a road on my long commute like this; I take the first option, but I hate having to do so and I hate hate *hate* that road… sadly I can only reasonably avoid it by taking unsurfaced tracks, which are frequently muddy and unsuitable for a road bike, or even worse roads.)

But if the oncoming traffic is heavy enough, it's relatively easy to turn across it because someone will be highly inclined to let you do so.

And if you're travelling in the highly-trafficked direction you're turning across a lightly-trafficked lane, which is also quite easy.

Obviously when the traffic is moderately heavy, ie fast but frequent, in one or both directions things become much harder.

Streetview is plenty good enough to work out things like that, and you're just ignoring the issues

Clearly not as it doesn't show traffic nor can you tell how steep the road is. I'm not ignoring 'issues', I'm speaking from experience.

If I was riding up there and thinking about crossing the road to the path I'd be checking behind to see what cars are doing and slowing down.

As you do with any right turn I presume?

Where does the extra traffic come from? I presume not the dead end road

It's built up behind the cyclist that's slowed right down because it's a climb and it's impossible to overtake. Or come out of the junction further down. If you'd ridden it you would know that.

Given a completely empty road would you use the bike path?

That's not a choice.

[quote=Gary_M ]Clearly not as it doesn't show traffic nor can you tell how steep the road is.

Neither of which are relevant to how good the sightlines are.

As you do with any right turn I presume?

Yes, which makes any right turn less convenient than carrying on.

Or come out of the junction further down.

So traffic which is already there at the crossing point, rather than building up after it?

That's not a choice.

Given a completely empty road it's still not a choice?

As I've said before aracer you should ride it rather than just talking about a picture of it.

You've got two people posted on this thread who know the path and ride it regularly both saying the same thing yet you know best based on streetview. One of your reasons for not riding the path was based on the path crossing a road near the point in question, the road being a dead end about 100m from the junction with no traffic ever on it, this shows the fallibility of your judgement method?

You're saying streetview is good for sightlines and it would be fine to overtake at the point - which is incorrect as no one ever overtakes there so clearly it's not showing the whole picture. But again this isn't even the bit I originally referred to.

And I can't believe people put convenience before safety, if you do then crack on.

A few people have mentioned the deterrent effect of users of cycle lanes / paths having to give way to side roads (which often in reality means stopping).

What do people find on the ones (if you have any) where this isn't the case, and the side roads have to give way?

There's a few round here (Leeds) where the pavement has been widened and semi-split so it's shared use - there's a low kerb (about the height of the dropped bit of a dropped kerb) along the middle of the "pavement" demarking the cycle bit from the walking bit and, crucially, the side roads crossing it have had their "give way" paint pulled back so the vehicles have to (?) give way before the pavement / cycleway - the result being that the cyclists have priority (or "right of way" as many erroneously refer to it) and don't have to give way every 50 yards, thereby solving that particular problem.

In my experience, can anyone guess how many drivers actually give way at the lines as they are clearly supposed to, as opposed to how many ignore it and pull up to where the line would have been previously, i.e. as it enters the main road?

Can anyone guess how often, after a couple of go's when it was put in, I currently use this lane, with its priority over crossing traffic, instead of just riding along the main road?

The answers won't surprise you: in my experience (yes, I know anecdote doesn't equal data) the majority of drivers approaching the main road ignore the new paint and pull right up to the entrance to the main road, blocking the cycleway. As a result of this, I don't use the lane, I use the road.

Anyone else had access to similar infrastructure? Similar / different experiences? I believe there's ever more of this kind of arrangement appearing in Leeds (no idea if anywhere else) and while it addresses the having-to-give-way-every-50-yards problem in theory, imho it makes the situation worse, since motor vehicles are still pulling across the bike lane without yielding to bikes, you still need to allow for this, so slowing or stopping but with the added hazard that it shouldn't be happening, the signage and road markings tell cyclists they have the priority so there is a greater risk of a cyclist riding in accordance with the layout finding themselves taking flight across someone's bonnet.

The thing that also annoys me about this is I've been using the road for years, before there was no separate cycling facility and I genuinely never encountered any difficulties or hazards beyond the normal dangers of careless motorists. But now, since there's a shiny new bike lane that I'm not using I occasionally get the frothy mouthed yelling abusive comments at me for being on the road. Grr.

P.S. I'd highly recommend that bollocks infrastructure twitter feed that Bez posted a couple of pages ago, unless you have a sensitive face that won't handle frequent palm contact.

As I've said before aracer you should ride it rather than just talking about a picture of it.

If that's a requirement in order to be able to comment, then posting about it on here is pretty pointless, unless you were just wanting everybody to agree with you? This thread is discussing why cyclists don't use infrastructure, and I'm pointing out some reasons.

But again this isn't even the bit I originally referred to.

I'm not sure why you think that is such an important point - I've agreed the bit you were referring to is nice, but you still have to use the bit I pointed out to get on it.

[quote=Gary_M ]And I can't believe people put convenience before safety, if you do then crack on.

Maybe other people's perception of safety are different to yours. I've not ridden it, but clearly other people have and made a different decision to you.

I can't believe people put convenience before safety

Of course they do. We all do, when we judge it appropriate, which is actually quite a lot of the time. You're riding a bicycle on the road when you could be travelling on it in a nice tin box full of airbags and crumple zones; why are you putting anything before your safety? Anyone in a nice tin box full of airbags and crumple zones drives it at a fairly high speed on the open road rather than pootle around at 20-30mph to make sure any impact won't result in serious injury; why do they put convenience before safety?

Life's a balance. You can spend half an hour each morning wrapping yourself in cotton wool, but it's not convenient enough for anyone to do it.

What do people find on the ones (if you have any) where this isn't the case, and the side roads have to give way?

I find the unicorns stop the traffic for me while the flying pigs keep an eye on things from above 🙂

Seriously… I don't think I've ever seen one.

[quote=edlong ]What do people find on the ones (if you have any) where this isn't the case, and the side roads have to give way?

I have a bit like this and it usually works, but not always IME (I did consider the markings there useful that I hassled the council to get them repainted when they'd faded) https://goo.gl/maps/gLDaCrfCALy (should be enough information in the streetview for others to comment on that).

I wouldn't say it was a deciding factor on using that path or not (there are other reasons which make it more inconvenient) - I don't use it when riding a bike, though do when on other slower forms of transport or with kids. I hope that cars will give way, but won't rely on it, which does make it less convenient as I have to slow down.

The reality of course is that a bit of paint doesn't fix the issue when drivers aren't used to giving way to bike paths. Really it needs at least a raised table for the drivers to make it more obvious (ie the bike path should continue flat and level, rather than having ramps up and down!) Though that particular one maybe does work to some extent as it's a well used path and a fairly small dead-end road, so drivers are used to seeing people crossing.

If that's a requirement in order to be able to comment, then posting about it on here is pretty pointless, unless you were just wanting everybody to agree with you?

Not bothered with people agreeing with me but your labouring the point about something you don't fully understand. I know you believe you have the full picture, I know you don't.

I'm not sure why you think that is such an important point

Er because you're going on about a section of the path that's completely different to the bit I was originally referring to. Pretty strong point really.

but you still have to use the bit I pointed out to get on it.

No you don't, you could use the next junction, the dead end that would stop you riding the path. So the whole section between the two that you've been banging on about is totally irrelevant.

What do people find on the ones (if you have any) where this isn't the case, and the side roads have to give way?

I have come across these in a few places and you know what? I treat them exactly the same as if I didn't have priority, because:

1 > most other people wont notice the markings
2 > a lot of the ones that do notice them don't know what they mean
3 > most of the others don't care what they mean
4 > even if other users, notice, understand, and care, they still might make a mistake or have not seen me

So that leaves me the same options as always 'slow down, look around, proceed if safe'

Sad but true.

As for the OP, you've come on here and asked opinions, you've got a few, most of them quite well thought through and reasoned. Obviously you don;t agree but the truth of the matter is that there IS a reason people are not using the path, if it's not one of the already explained reasons then they only way you're gonna find out is to ask some of the people who don't use it...

There's plenty of (shared and cycle specific) paths round here that I use, and plenty I don't, for various reasons, most of them already covered in this thread. Sometimes is a mix of lots of small reasons, sometimes it's one big one, but at the end of the day people don't [i]have [/i]to a reason, the reason could be a lack of a reason to do otherwise. I've been involved locally with some of the research and campaigning and it's not at all unusual for people to answer 'meh, can't be bothered, I'm already going this way..." or similar. Which means it's not them [i]choosing [b]not [/b]to use[/i] the path, it's them [i]not choosing [b]to [/b]use[/i] the path. Subtle but important difference.

You can't make people want to use the paths, you have to make the paths more desirable than the alternative, and that doesn't just mean safer, everyone has different priorities (and they change depending on the reason for the ride too), so it means safer, easier, quicker, nicer etc. If possible, ALL of those together.

So what is the difference in crossing the road at the official crossing or at the junction? Apart of course from that at the junction there are no solid white lines so vehicles are more likely to be trying to overtake you.

Where do you cross the road?